Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports

Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday: "[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.

just say no

[drDugan]

I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.

The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.

Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.

At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.

Re:um, radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the wavelength. It uses radio, I'm assuming like ultrasound, except it doesn't penetrate your skin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave
It would be within the range of 57-64 GHz.

Re:Constitutional law

[Martin Blank]

No.

Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.

Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves

[IvyKing]

If I recall correctly, the systme uses ~30GHz radiation for the scanning. Power levels are in line with a normal urban environment (I've read the safety report on the machine) - think people walking by with cell phones. Since the wavelength is about 1 cm, the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.

Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

It's a millimeter-wave imaging system

[Animats]

This isn't an X-ray machine, or even a Z-backscatter machine. It's a millimeter wave device. TSA has a web page [tsa.gov] for the thing. It's not as detailed as a Z-backscatter image.

Here's the product page for the ProVision scanner. [dsxray.com] It's made by Level 3 Communications.

This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.

Actual images of scans

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/05/you-asked-for-ityou-got-it-millimeter.html [tsa.gov]

Re:Geez,

[LynnwoodRooster]

RTFA. This is used as a traveler-selected alternative to a pat-down when selected for a secondary screening. Your choice is a pat-down or a scan. It's not for the vast majority of travelers.

Re:Geez,

[pipingguy]

I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

It has more to do with fear and making money than it has to do with your worry. Not that the former won't lead to the latter.

Re:um, radiation

[Animats]

In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves".

Er, studied physics where?

There's nothing mysterious about millimeter waves. They're from about 30GHz to 300GHz. They're not ionizing radiation, like X-rays. Here's a simple scanning millimeter wave radar system [spbstu.ru] with pictures of the components and images from the system. Note the tiny waveguide and feed horn. It's a radar in miniature. This little unit runs at 35GHz, so it's just barely into the millimeter range.

In the millimeter RF range, it seems to be possible to get up to about 100GHz with off the shelf components [terabeam-hxi.com] using Gunn diodes and GaAs transistors. Above 100GHz is still mostly an area for experimental work. There are people working on "to 100GHz and beyond! [farran.com]. But not much is really working up there yet.

This isn't a backscatter X-ray system. That's a completely different technology.

Re:Constitutional law

[zippthorne]

And that would be correct.. BEFORE THE TSA. when the airlines were contracting private security companies to do the screening, they could set whatever terms they wanted on the ticket.

But TSA doing it, as an agency under a cabinet level department, is pretty squarely in the unconstitutional realm.

Re:Geez,

[joeman3429]

because it was insightful

Re:Ewwww...

[masterzora]

Just because you show your ID three times doesn't mean others can't get away with not showing their IDs. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71115 [wired.com]

Mod: -1 Troll, -2 Clueless, -5 FUD

[rts008]

Why did you not also quote the VERY NEXT SENTENCE FTA?

Here peabrain, I'll save you the trouble:
"Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."

Didn't notice all of the signs around the checkpoint....hmmm just like 6 year olds.

"How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on until after the fact, or given the option of refusing the scan??
They (and YOU) can start by pulling your heads out of your rectums and PAY ATTENTION to what's going on around you.

Yeah, I know your type:
'Me!Me!Me!-Gimme!Gimme!Gimme!'

That's what is wrong now:not scanners in airports per se, but idiots like you who DO need a nanny. You have brought the whole deal on all of us.
*sarcasm* Thanks, asshat!

Re:Ewwww...

[Martin Blank]

Yes, you can. Bruce Schneier did it. [citypages.com] So did author Tim Ferriss. [fourhourworkweek.com] So did journalist Jim Harper. [wired.com]

Re:Cavity search?

[josecanuc]

C4 is not unstable. Even so, an electric shock will not cause C4 to detonate. Such explosives require a large and quick physical shock (pressure) to start detonation, usually supplied by a blasting cap, which can be triggered electrically.

Re:Cavity search?

[archont]

You need a blasting cap. One or two grams will be just enough. All you need to do is hermetically seal off that amount of substance (depending on which substance you're using and it's ignition temperature it can be anything from resin to wax), wash it in a solvent or any aggressive substance that'll remove traces of the primer and then put it inside your digital camera, watch, laptop or any other physically complex device. Modern blasting caps are detonated by very low voltages. I used to detonate them with those flat little button cells. Considering it's really easy to blow up a plane today there are only two possible explanations why it's not raining aluminum: 1. The terrorists are idiots and can't do this kind of attack because they lack knowledge. 2. There are no terrorists willing to hijack planes and kill civilians in modern countries just for the fun of it.